tv [untitled] April 9, 2012 1:30am-2:00am PDT
we have a large contingent to talk about mr. tan, an -- about district 10, and i would like to reconsider, because we did not have this kind of feedback from the community, and i know this is the last day for recommending changes, but i want to put it on the table but the decision we make is going to affect the community, so i want this to be more thoughtful, and they think out our decisions. i do not want us to be tied to our decisions. i want us to be open and flexible as we near the deadline. i just wanted to comment on what
we earlier stated. >> today is the last date for decisions. we are still open to public commentary did you have perspective? >> one is in terms of where we are in the process, i agree with a couple of my colleagues who have said we should be open- minded but we should take the possibility seriously. i agree we have been on a track that depends on the placement of the neighborhood, but i do not think we have run out of time to
consider another option, so i think we should think that through, and the last meeting may be coming on the last opportunity to entertain proposals like that and all the dominoes that would fall, but i do want to say what i heard was quite makeixed. i did not hear a preponderance of feedback that clearly signals support for placement in district 10 or in district 9. i know there were several comments made, and i appreciate that, but i also appreciate other comments as well.
that was my interpretation of the comments we heard tonight on the placement. i think i agree with most of the comments that have been made that if we are going to draw it into a large degree, we are better signaling our thoughts and saving that for our next meeting, and if we want to do that for all sorts of changes, i think that might be useful. i do think anticipating the next couple meetings, we should expect to have fairly lengthy mapping sessions. we do not have much time left. we agreed we should have an interim deadline to settle
before the 14th so we can concentrate on finishing the report. >> given the comments from task force members, i would propose that we hold off this evening, but discussing areas for consideration, and we will focus on on the drawing for next week. since our deliberations, we have not had discussions or conversations, so this may be the opportunity to begin with the road map is going to look like in the final weeks as far as consideration as well as some of the difficult decisions but will have to be made in the coming weeks, so if i do not hear any objections, i will open it up to task force members to
that six, nine, 10, and 11 are way over, and have seemed to back words. half -- that seems backwards. i am still interested in ways to move populations. we have not come to consensus on ways to do abouthat, but that cn be a priority. the area, that is not the way i would approach it, but that seems to be a way of the world. i think the map and we have now is mostly done, and we will have a further conversation on
our final report and how we allow minority opinions to be expressed, but i think the decision is to keep the poor vulnerable region -- to keep the portal whole. to undo the out icing causes major issues on the east side -- to run do that, i think causes major issues on the east side, and i'm supportive of making that change. i am interested in the proposal
on the line between 8 and 5. also a thing there was some consensus between the realtors month to move some of buckner -- some of the ashbery heights area from 8 to 5. i think that helps. the little section between six and eight continues to bother me, and i think there's a little play there. i was going to ask if you have some other stocks -- fthoughts on that particular thing. i am not an especially
comfortable with the district for section, but that thoughts t this time. >> other members? >> ok, i had a couple of things. i thought it would be a good idea to look at the possibility of moving two blocks north of district five of the cathedral hill neighborhood association. i continue to wonder about, again, being reinstated and one of the comments received this time around. it has to do with more uncommon district two.
i want to please ask you to really think about district 9. people in the community thought that the meeting that we had at the horsemen was the meeting that we were holding for the mission and as when they gave their input to bring the community together up to the freeway. i'm one of the people that said no and i continue to feel that it doesn't belong there. those people are divided by the freeway and don't want to be connected to the mission. i am really concerned about that. i am not going to give up on
that until the end. >> this is really helpful, but the way, to hear what is on everyone's mind. one thing that a sort of a new thought, and to some extent, maybe a little bit of a reversal of some work we did last week. i am the sinbad and our current working draft, the jimmy that is going -- i am noticing that in our current working draft, the chimney that is going is a slight overpopulation because we moved about during -- or the boundary, that is one thought.
if those blocks were moved into district 1, that is about 1300 people. it could be cascaded throughout one, too, and three. i appreciate that some of the members of the public sought some feedback from other community members. i share the concerns that it is a small block of geography -- the blocks that are in the northeast section of district 8, this is right across from the
freeway. the blocks that are sort of southwest of the 101, south of market, you can see a cut out into the area that is west of valencia street. ok, yes. i think that's the park. that area, i wonder if it could be moved into district 8. that is a possibility i am wondering about. in terms of district 6, limit a couple of adjustments, one of which was to move of boundary. i did not support that at the time. we don't want to upset the apple cart.
we have the mission bay area that we think is divided. and i think it would be worth it, i would like to examine that again. of course we of the portable question. i was interested in the supervisor's comments about the existing boundaries verses the boundaries and the draft back. we have reduced the population from 11 to 7.
>> 1886 people, and it would bring the deviation of district 11 to 7.04%. >> if i can point out, with respect to the district 7 population, if we move the northern boundary back up, it would offset the quite a bit, i believe. >> can we see between them? >> maybe you can overlay the current air to. >> the blue light is the current boundaries.
the red highlighted area is 2265 people. that will bring the deviation of district 7 to 1.01%. >> you were also reference in 17 rather than 15. >> wasn't moving? ahead of the current lines are all across. that is currently inside of what your highlighting. >> in the draft. >> kenya of highlight that for a second?
-- can you unhighlight that for a second? >> additional population inquiries? >> can look south of vase worth? if we were to take that section of northeast sunnyside, south of was worth that is now in? what does that do? >> that brings the deviation to district 7 to 0.29% a the deviation of district 8 t 10 -
at over 2000 people. i guess with the obvious trade- offs -- >> the thing is, if you put that in there and you put north of mission all the way to the freeway, then they have those people. >> i am thinking of district 10 that would be over populated. i just want to see the numbers. >> i would like to point out that if you want to try some of these things out, it is very quick to underlit again. don't be shy to ask us to draw one. >> are we shy? >> we are a number of things,
>> 2804 people. >> it's not just it, to david's point, the population depth is between 280 and district 9 line. that is what you're talking about moving. no, even that -- i encourage -- i think that we should think about it because we have split opinion. for others that are really considered, it would be important to see a plan for what that looks like. >> i wanted to make a comment. this is not to advocate one way or the other, but if you wanted to put it in 10, you effectively have to do our rotation. these are all rotation jobs.
you end up with most of the hill and greater mission bay in 6. naughton and the killing more to the north mission, but it also has the effect of really cutting into soma. wouldn't be 16th, 14th, the freeway or 11th. it ends up in a very strange place in the western -- and the western soma folks would have issues. haute there is a balance to be had. >> i think we have some targeted areas for next week cosy discussion. similar to raising that i think the task force should be
prepared and will have some link the mapping sessions, a solar want to encourage members to be ready for the endurance that will be required. next week, we will have the task force present. at this time, if there are no additional inquiries, we will move on to the agenda item, community outreach. >> thank you. i forwarded to -- or i asked madam clerk to forward to task members the ads that came out for community outreach. we have five.